JCPSLP Vol 14 No 2 2012

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au

JCPSLP

Volume 14, Number 2 2012

Research update

(From the top)

Jeff Sigafoos,

Dean Sutherland,

Larah van der

Meer, Debora

Kagohara, and

Donna Achmadi

as a function of the teaching (intervention) program. This

finding suggests that our teaching methods were largely

successful. For the remaining children, who have yet to

reach the learning (or acquisition) criterion, we intend to

provide more intensive intervention.

•

For the 17 children who have so far reached the learning

(or acquisition) criterion of 80% correct, we found that

the speed of learning varied across the three methods of

communication. Specifically, SGD use was learned the

fastest (i.e., in the fewest mean number of teaching trials

on average), followed by PECS and manual sign (see

Figure 1). This finding suggests that SGDs may be an

easier method of communication for children with autism

to learn or an easier AAC system to teach.

here is general consensus that children with autism

who do not develop speech should be taught to use

augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)

(Mirenda & Iacono, 2009). AAC options include manual

signs, picture-exchange communication, and electronic

speech-generating devices (SGDs). There is considerable

debate, but little research, regarding which of these three

options is best suited to children with autism. Comparative

studies are few and have not compared the full range of

AAC options. The few studies that do exist have revealed

only small differences in terms of how quickly some children

can learn to use these different systems (Mirenda, 2003;

Sigafoos, O’Reilly, Schlosser, & Lancioni, 2007); However,

the speed of acquisition of AAC systems has also been

surprisingly quick in these studies, suggesting that the

participants were relatively easy to teach. Overall, the

limited data on this issue to date, suggest that while rate of

acquisition may vary for different AAC systems, there may

be other variables to consider, such as a child’s preference

for using different AAC options.

Pilot data indicate that individuals with autism and

other developmental disabilities often show idiosyncratic

preferences for using particular AAC options (e.g., Sigafoos

et al., 2009). This raises the intriguing possibility that

a child’s preference for using one type of AAC option

over others might be an important independent variable

that could significantly affect progress in learning to

communicate. Indeed, children may be able to “self-

determine” the best and most effective AAC option.

Our current research project is comparing three methods

of communication for children with autism who have

very limited spoken language (i.e., less than 10 single

words). The three methods are 1) manual signs, 2) picture

exchange communication system (PECS), and 3) electronic

speech-generating devices (SGDs – iPods®/ iPads®). The

first of two studies is currently underway and is comparing

these three methods of communication to answer the

following questions:

1. Do children with autism learn to use one method of

communication faster than the other two?

2. Do children with autism show a preference for using

manual signs v. picture-exchange v. speech-generating

devices?

3. Can such preferences be identified during the teaching

(intervention) process?

4. Are preferences for different AAC options stable over time?

5. Does preference influence how quickly and efficiently

children learn?

6. Does preference influence the extent to which children

continue to use their newly acquired communication

skills after the intervention has ended?

The key findings to date are:

•

Seventeen out of 21 children successfully learnt to make

requests (e.g., “I want more.” “I want to play with a toy.”)

Communication intervention

for children with autism

Jeff Sigafoos, Dean Sutherland, Larah van der Meer, Debora Kagohara, and Donna Achmadi

Figure 1. Mean number of teaching trials per AAC option to reach

criterion

•

The 17 children who have so far reached the learning

(or acquisition) criterion have also participated in the

preference assessment phase of Study 1. As part of

this assessment, each of these 17 children received

structured opportunities to choose which of the three

communication methods they would like to use to make

requests. The percentage of opportunities that each

option was selected served as a measure of relative

preference. On average, as shown in Figure 2, the SGD

was chosen 50% of the time, followed by PECS (20%),

and manual sign (11%). This finding suggests that the

SGD is preferred over the other two methods. However,

on 20% of the assessment opportunities that have so

far been conducted, children did not make a choice.

We are not yet sure how to interpret these “no-choice”

responses. In addition, while children’s preferences for

different communication methods appeared consistent

during the intervention stage of Study 1, it remains

unclear how stable these preferences will be over time,

hence the need for follow-up in 2012.

•

Comparing Figures 1 and 2 suggests that children

showed more rapid learning with the most preferred

SGD

Sign

PECS